My biggest issues with the game at the moment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

KamilS -> My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/21/2012 3:50:35 AM)

Should we expect improvement in German C&C and nerfing performances of high ROF elements? Or these things are not considered problem?



Flaviusx -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/21/2012 4:21:42 AM)

Um, what's wrong with German C&C?




MechFO -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/21/2012 10:36:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Should we expect improvement in German C&C and nerfing performances of high ROF elements? Or these things are not considered problem?


Add in mountain winter joy rides.



KamilS -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/21/2012 11:47:44 AM)

quote:

Flaviusx


Um, what's wrong with German C&C?



Since '42 onwards it is impossible for Germans to have HQs not overloaded - it is opposite trend for Soviets.




Flaviusx -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/21/2012 4:04:56 PM)

Oh? STAVKA overloads in late 1941 and never gets below cap after that. Front command capacity never quite catches up, either, although it is manageable by mid 1943. (You'll still have more units than can be fit in.)

The Red Army has to get by mostly on a single layer of command -- the army.

German C&C is light years ahead of this.




mmarquo -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/21/2012 5:56:23 PM)

Do not overload the Axis HQs; rotate burnt out units to OKH command and replace with fresh ones. I have noticed in both my current games (one as Axis, other Soviet) that HQ overload appears to be the biggest (-) factor affecting combat.


arquo



KamilS -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/22/2012 2:37:40 AM)

quote:

Marquo

Do not overload the Axis HQs; rotate burnt out units to OKH command and replace with fresh ones



It is not as easy as it seems - it is necessary to use inferior Romanian, Hungarian and Italian HQs and it costs lots of AP. On the top of that Germans need to maintain constant rotation due to inability to refit in enemy's ZOC.


quote:

Flaviusx

Oh? STAVKA overloads in late 1941 and never gets below cap after that. Front command capacity never quite catches up, either, although it is manageable by mid 1943. (You'll still have more units than can be fit in.)

The Red Army has to get by mostly on a single layer of command -- the army.

German C&C is light years ahead of this.




Mid '42 - I hope I counted units properly



Germans:

184 Divisions, 3 brigades and 9 regiments - overall 380 pts (I do not count security forces)

40 Corps - 360 (Note fact that improvement of command from 8 to 9, is not as big gain as it seems - practically You need to choose between proper command (4 divisions - 8/9) or slightly overloaded (5 divisions - 10/9)

12 Armies - 324 (And one leaves in autumn of '42)



So average Corps have 9,5/9 command points (practically, because of using divisions instead of mix of div and brigades situation is slightly worse) - Theoretically You can get 4 HQ with 4 div (8/9), 12 HQ with 4 div + 1 brig/reg and 24 HQ with 5 div (10/9). So 16 with good command and 24 slightly overloaded (by 1).


Average Army have 31,3/27 (late '42 it gets to 34,5/27). On Average overloaded by 4 and later 7 or 8.



Is it good?




Schmart -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/22/2012 8:10:53 AM)

I haven't yet had any problems with over capacity playing as the Germans, You just have to know how to stretch everything to the limits.

In Apr 43, German Corps capacity goes up to 10 (5 Divs).

Also, Army and AG capacity also increases in 42, 43, 44. You will have have to attach more divisions direct to Army HQs. This is how I rotate units from the front (attach from Corps to Army HQ). Also, you can attach some Corps direct to AG HQs, rather than to Armies. I use this on quiet fronts to limit penalties. You also have 2 Finnish Armies. If possible, stretch these as much as you can by adding German units/Corps. You will not have enough Finnish Divs to fill even one of those Armies. Don't forget the other Allied Armies, especially the Hungarians. If you really have nothing left, rotate weak units to OKH.



Mentor -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/22/2012 1:05:07 PM)

Why is it assumed by some that the game must be designed in a way that allows the player to distribute forces and remain under the C&C cap across the board? It seems obvious that it was a design decision to provide more forces than once has C&C capacity to manage (on both sides), and that it is up to the player to make decisions on how to manage this.

Making compromises to balance things out so that critical areas of the front are not overloaded is one of the most enjoyable aspects of this game, to me. If it became merely a shuffling exercise to smooth things out under the cap across the board then the game would not be as interesting.



Peltonx -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/22/2012 6:09:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

quote:

Marquo

Do not overload the Axis HQs; rotate burnt out units to OKH command and replace with fresh ones



It is not as easy as it seems - it is necessary to use inferior Romanian, Hungarian and Italian HQs and it costs lots of AP. On the top of that Germans need to maintain constant rotation due to inability to refit in enemy's ZOC.


quote:

Flaviusx

Oh? STAVKA overloads in late 1941 and never gets below cap after that. Front command capacity never quite catches up, either, although it is manageable by mid 1943. (You'll still have more units than can be fit in.)

The Red Army has to get by mostly on a single layer of command -- the army.

German C&C is light years ahead of this.




Mid '42 - I hope I counted units properly



Germans:

184 Divisions, 3 brigades and 9 regiments - overall 380 pts (I do not count security forces)

40 Corps - 360 (Note fact that improvement of command from 8 to 9, is not as big gain as it seems - practically You need to choose between proper command (4 divisions - 8/9) or slightly overloaded (5 divisions - 10/9)

12 Armies - 324 (And one leaves in autumn of '42)



So average Corps have 9,5/9 command points (practically, because of using divisions instead of mix of div and brigades situation is slightly worse) - Theoretically You can get 4 HQ with 4 div (8/9), 12 HQ with 4 div + 1 brig/reg and 24 HQ with 5 div (10/9). So 16 with good command and 24 slightly overloaded (by 1).


Average Army have 31,3/27 (late '42 it gets to 34,5/27). On Average overloaded by 4 and later 7 or 8.



Is it good?




Sorry to say it but you should know by now this game is run by Russian carebears and asking for anything German, your labeled a crazy fool.

German C & C as anyone with an open mind knows is 100% not reflected in this game Kamil, plus allot of other things.

AP's as German player are far to short to even bother tring to balance things out, you are forsed to spend all AP's building forts from 42 on or you will get rolled quickly, because of the over rating of Rifle corp's.

Again I tried with many subjects talking facts but as always the Red carebear machine defends the non historical sillyness time and time again.

Russian C&C was zero, Stalin was a nut job who micro managed the war from the top. Troops attacked and died or were shot by their own officers for retreating. I have posted this Stalin order alrdy on the forums. They were shot and their family's.

Thanks for tring, but dont expect any debate on the issue only personal attacks from the Red CB's.

Pelton



mmarquo -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/22/2012 10:11:38 PM)

"Russian C&C was zero, Stalin was a nut job who micro managed the war from the top."

Really? And you think that the Axis was any better? Hilter assuming command of OKH which should have been subordinate to OKW; multiple generals dismised on a whim; the ss as a functional different and separate fighting force, pathetic "festung...stand fast and die orders", etc.

I beleive that units in the frontlines do get a chance at refit; but what does one expect? Russia is immense and units need to be withdrawn from the front to be refit. The most significant proAxis fan boy distortion this game has is that German units do not have to be shipped back west to France to refit for several months to get any significant benefit from refit at all. And after June 1944 the ability to refit should be drastically reduced as France is no longer a refit vacation.

I think this game is good at forcing the Axis to create OKW reserves; if the front is too big, then maybe you are in too deep....[X(]

Marquo



randallw -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/22/2012 10:28:55 PM)

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/96/Grumpy_Bear.jpg/250px-Grumpy_Bear.jpg[/img]



Aurelian -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/23/2012 2:46:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"Russian C&C was zero, Stalin was a nut job who micro managed the war from the top."

Really? And you think that the Axis was any better? Hilter assuming command of OKH which should have been subordinate to OKW; multiple generals dismised on a whim; the ss as a functional different and separate fighting force, pathetic "festung...stand fast and die orders", etc.

The most significant proAxis fan boy distortion this game has is that German units do not have to be shipped back west to France to refit for several months to get any significant benefit from refit at all. And after June 1944 the ability to refit should be drastically reduced as France is no longer a refit vacation.

Marquo


Funny how he doesn't rant about that not being in the game. Must be those Axis loving "rednecks", to borrow his phrase.

Funny how as the war went on. Hitler interfered more and more, while Stalin did the opposite.

One of those dirty little secrets that escapes the disgruntled.



Aurelian -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/23/2012 2:48:17 AM)

Double post



DivePac88 -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/23/2012 10:07:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Funny how as the war went on. Hitler interfered more and more, while Stalin did the opposite.



I think that Stalin still interfered in operational matters, but the difference was he had more competent commanders running his fronts.



glvaca -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/23/2012 4:11:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"Russian C&C was zero, Stalin was a nut job who micro managed the war from the top."

Really? And you think that the Axis was any better? Hilter assuming command of OKH which should have been subordinate to OKW; multiple generals dismised on a whim; the ss as a functional different and separate fighting force, pathetic "festung...stand fast and die orders", etc.

I beleive that units in the frontlines do get a chance at refit; but what does one expect? Russia is immense and units need to be withdrawn from the front to be refit. The most significant proAxis fan boy distortion this game has is that German units do not have to be shipped back west to France to refit for several months to get any significant benefit from refit at all. And after June 1944 the ability to refit should be drastically reduced as France is no longer a refit vacation.

I think this game is good at forcing the Axis to create OKW reserves; if the front is too big, then maybe you are in too deep....[X(]

Marquo

Regarding your comment about France holiday refit area, the main reason the units where brought for refit to France was to provide garrison troops while doing so AND to have a reserve ready to beat of the Allied invasion should it be launched.
I really don't think that it France was chosen because units were unable to refit in Russia, Germany or Poland.




paullus99 -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/23/2012 6:51:08 PM)

Funny how Pelton rants & raves, yet I don't seem to see a lot of Russian units in Berlin, as opposed to tons of Germans in Moscow......



Aurelian -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/23/2012 9:16:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Funny how as the war went on. Hitler interfered more and more, while Stalin did the opposite.



I think that Stalin still interfered in operational matters, but the difference was he had more competent commanders running his fronts.



He did at times, but still gave the RKKA more freedom in planning etc while Hitler went the other way.



Aurelian -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/23/2012 9:19:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"Russian C&C was zero, Stalin was a nut job who micro managed the war from the top."

Really? And you think that the Axis was any better? Hilter assuming command of OKH which should have been subordinate to OKW; multiple generals dismised on a whim; the ss as a functional different and separate fighting force, pathetic "festung...stand fast and die orders", etc.

I beleive that units in the frontlines do get a chance at refit; but what does one expect? Russia is immense and units need to be withdrawn from the front to be refit. The most significant proAxis fan boy distortion this game has is that German units do not have to be shipped back west to France to refit for several months to get any significant benefit from refit at all. And after June 1944 the ability to refit should be drastically reduced as France is no longer a refit vacation.

I think this game is good at forcing the Axis to create OKW reserves; if the front is too big, then maybe you are in too deep....[X(]

Marquo

Regarding your comment about France holiday refit area, the main reason the units where brought for refit to France was to provide garrison troops while doing so AND to have a reserve ready to beat of the Allied invasion should it be launched.
I really don't think that it France was chosen because units were unable to refit in Russia, Germany or Poland.




Up until D-Day, France was used as a rest/refit/reserve area for the East. One of the things that you don't see in the game was that German units stayed in line till they were burned to their core, then withdrawn. (IIRC my decades old reading.)



Aurelian -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/23/2012 9:22:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Funny how Pelton rants & raves, yet I don't seem to see a lot of Russian units in Berlin, as opposed to tons of Germans in Moscow......



But but, the Axis are not suppossed to have the freedom to do that. Or take Leningrad. Guess the "redneck Russian fanboy carebears" slipped up.



Tarhunnas -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/23/2012 9:32:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

... I don't seem to see a lot of Russian units in Berlin, as opposed to tons of Germans in Moscow......


I am working on it... all it takes is time [;)]
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2792361&mpage=1&key=



KamilS -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/23/2012 11:29:24 PM)

I see, that discussion degenerated into argument [;)]


To clarify things:

My comments on C&C were based on assumption, that German command should be vastly superior in '41, clearly superior in '42 and slightly in '43 and since '44 pendulum swings in Soviet's favour.


OFF Topic

I am dissatisfied with connecting C&C efficiency to historical time line. It is as big simplification as in case of national morale - both should reflect in-game state of affairs.



C&C components


Unit reassignment - It is on average 3 to 4 times less expensive for Soviet's, but it is necessary to remember, that at early stage of war German division is 3 to 4 times stronger. It changes in '42 in favour of Soviets (they get more reassigned more CV points per AP spent) and I think it is right. (I have to point out, that there is one problem as well - corps size units are far to expensive to reassign, in '42 it is approximately 3 time more AP per reassigned CV




Commanders - I feel, that Soviet leaders are slightly too poor, especially in commanding mechanised units.


HQs -


Soviet C&C in '41 is tragic. They start situation is total mess, they have only 6 Fronts and building fortified zones is very expensive. Plenty of issues little AP. Germans have almost perfect 1st level of command, good 2nd and much better commanders, overall they are vastly superior. I feel it is as it should be.


In '42 Soviet C&C look pretty good, too good - new fronts arrive, every army is within command limit and each is much stronger. Corps are hard to reassign, but there are still plenty of divisions around, and they strength isn't as tragic as in '41.



When Axis launch their limited offensive (year '42) they can get almost every participating corps within its limit of command, but getting 2nd level of command right isn't that easy and Soviets hold advantage here as well. My conclusion is - in '42 Soviet 1st and 2nd level of command is slightly better, and they can reassign more CV per each spend AP. Germans have superior commanders, so in my estimation situation is even. It lasts for around half a year, until autumn of '42 when Germans loose one of their armies.

Since then Soviets fed by constant arrival of new fronts supplemented by creation of corps size units slowly approach state of 2 perfect levels of command



Conclusion:


In my opinion Soviet C&C surpass German one year too early.





Off Topic


quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Funny how Pelton rants & raves, yet I don't seem to see a lot of Russian units in Berlin, as opposed to tons of Germans in Moscow......


quote:

Aurelian

But but, the Axis are not suppossed to have the freedom to do that. Or take Leningrad. Guess the "redneck Russian fanboy carebears" slipped up.




You got it completely wrong.

Many games ended in '42 and '43 because German player knew game is lost and didn't want to play it out (what not always is bad).

Argument You mentioned is actually evidence against Your point - How many times Soviets loose Moscow and game ends up in axis victory or draw? Not too many I guess. If so then what is the significance of the fact, that Soviet can loose Moscow and still win?



Aurelian -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/24/2012 1:51:24 AM)

No, I don't have it wrong. How many times have the same few whined and moaned about how the game is so pro Russian?

How the Axis are tied by history?

You saw the arguement above "Stalin was a nut job who micromanaged the war from the top."

And yet, no complaints about how the Axis, from the few, about how they have the freedom to ignore history as well.

I don't see any Russian players whining about how the Axis can ignore Hitler and take Leningrad/Moscow. Or ignore the stand fast orders. Or forces them to launch Typhoon/Blue/whatever.



KamilS -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/24/2012 1:55:18 AM)

quote:

Aurelian


No, I don't have it wrong. How many times have the same few whined and moaned about how the game is so pro Russian?

How the Axis are tied by history?

You saw the arguement above "Stalin was a nut job who micromanaged the war from the top."

And yet, no complaints about how the Axis, from the few, about how they have the freedom to ignore history as well.


I don't see any Russian players whining about how the Axis can ignore Hitler and take Leningrad/Moscow. Or ignore the stand fast orders. Or forces them to launch Typhoon/Blue/whatever.



So where did I get it wrong?

Assuming that German C&C is superior to Soviet until the end (or mid) '43? Or not proving, that Soviet C&C surpasses German in late '42?



Plus if Soviet players do not complain, does it mean they have nothing to complain about or are they just more sensible than German ones? (that is joke, but it has some reference to reality)



Schmart -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/24/2012 2:17:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Conclusion:


In my opinion Soviet C&C surpass German one year too early.


I disagree. If one is trying to build a historical Russian OOB, then good C&C becomes very difficult in 1942. Basically, it boils down to two main choices for the Russian player in 1942, in regards to the spending of Admin Pts:

1. Good C&C and good leaders, but weaker OOB.
2. Historical OOB, but poor C&C and bad leaders.

I think most Russian players are choosing #1, because it is more instinctual especially after playing the German side first.



76mm -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/24/2012 2:44:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil
How many times Soviets loose Moscow and game ends up in axis victory or draw? Not too many I guess. If so then what is the significance of the fact, that Soviet can loose Moscow and still win?

Kamil, I don't really have a strong opinion either way on your main point about C&C, but I think that your point above is misleading for a couple of reasons. First, I don't know why you seem surprised that the Sovs can "lose Moscow and still win"? Why shouldn't the Sovs be able to lose Moscow and still win? This general topic has been discussed very extensively in other threads, so I won't repeat it all here...

Second, very few games have made it to 1944-1945, but in the games that have, the Germans did very well in 1941-1942, taking Moscow and much else besides. In those games, including Tarhunnas' game, the Germans will almost certainly get a draw or even a victory. Please show us the AAR for a game where the Sovs are in Berlin by May 1945? And this is for the pre-1.05 games; by the looks of the AARs, in most of the 1.05 games the Germans will do even better.



DivePac88 -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/24/2012 3:00:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kamil

Many games ended in '42 and '43 because German player knew game is lost and didn't want to play it out (what not always is bad).



I think the main problem that causes a lot of Pbem games to end early; is the common misconception that people have when they enter them. That these complex long-term strategy games are all about the outright victory, and they are not. They are as close as you can get, to the operational level wargame portrayal of twentieth century warfare.

In WitE, and WitP there are just about always never a complete victory by either side, and there shouldn't be. As these games are not about that, they are about each and every turn, about the art of the campaign game. The point being that if you get two equally committed players, then the outcome is open ended.

I think that players who go into these game for an end-game fix, are missing the point. These games are not about the end-game fix, they are about the each-turn fix. Operational warfare is not easy to run, and that is why commanders had huge staffs. That is why a staff problem is called a problem, because that's what it is.

So it goes without saying that there will be numerous problems with running an operational wargame, that's the game. Work with them, or work round them, that's part of the beauty of this game. That is why it's about the turns, and not the end, it's about the getting there.





JAMiAM -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/24/2012 3:06:59 AM)

Excellent post, DivePac88. It ain't the destination, it's the journey getting there.



karonagames -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/24/2012 9:42:35 AM)

/agreed

+1



Apollo11 -> RE: My biggest issues with the game at the moment (1/24/2012 9:49:24 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88

I think the main problem that causes a lot of Pbem games to end early; is the common misconception that people have when they enter them. That these complex long-term strategy games are all about the outright victory, and they are not. They are as close as you can get, to the operational level wargame portrayal of twentieth century warfare.

In WitE, and WitP there are just about always never a complete victory by either side, and there shouldn't be. As these games are not about that, they are about each and every turn, about the art of the campaign game. The point being that if you get two equally committed players, then the outcome is open ended.

I think that players who go into these game for an end-game fix, are missing the point. These games are not about the end-game fix, they are about the each-turn fix. Operational warfare is not easy to run, and that is why commanders had huge staffs. That is why a staff problem is called a problem, because that's what it is.

So it goes without saying that there will be numerous problems with running an operational wargame, that's the game. Work with them, or work round them, that's part of the beauty of this game. That is why it's about the turns, and not the end, it's about the getting there.


Very nicely written and very true Des! [:)]



Leo "Apollo11"



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875